The German software company announced the result in a blog post titled: Five and oh look, another claim upholds user’s rights online.

S ddeutscheZeitung had actually differed with the web browser extension software application obstructing ads on its sites and stated the company`s Acceptable Ads effort, which whitelists particular ads from Ad block`s “tactical partners”, should not be enabled.

In its decision the court stated there is no contract in between users and publishers where the user has accepted view all the advertisements a publisher serves and as a result users have the right to obstruct any advertisement they please.

As for the Acceptable Ads effort, the judge ruled that by providing publishers a way to serve ads that ad-blocking users will accept it supplied publishers with an opportunity to monetize their content and was for that reason not unfavorable to them.

The Munich court concluded the case by putting the onus on the publishers, specifying that the law did not exist to maintain their business designs therefore it was up to them to innovate as a means of addressing the issue of ad blocking.

The post ends by stating: Look, we put on to wish to pile on publishers here. We know that the shift from print to online is still a huge obstacle. However we view advertisement blocking similar to the court: as an opportunity, or a challenge, to innovate.